That can be true, but looking on the last half of patch (which *was* incorporated in 3.11, sorry for giving wrong info from a glance), it comes in mind that the error should never appear after pseudofs behavior was fixed (in way you are proposing). Therefore current reason is still unclear to me.
That can be true, but looking on the last half of patch (which *was* incorporated in 3.11, sorry for giving wrong info from a glance), it comes in mind that the error should never appear after pseudofs behavior was fixed (in way you are proposing). Therefore current reason is still unclear to me.